Discussion Title: Should Governments Subsidize Ethanol?

1. Governments shouldn't subsidize ethanol.
1.1. Pro: The environmental benefits are uncertain.
1.1.1. Pro: The EPA has [not met statutory requirements](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/_epaoig_20160818-16-p-0275.pdf) to identify environmental impacts of renewable fuel standard.
1.1.2. Pro: Ethanol production itself creates [greenhouse gases.](https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-corn-ethanol-production/)
1.1.3. Pro: Ethanol production may encourage [deforestation.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-not-cut-emissions/)
1.1.4. Con: [Exhaust gases](http://bioethanol-np.blogspot.co.uk/p/advantages-of-bioethanol.html) from ethanol are much cleaner, as ethanol burns more cleanly due to a more complete combustion process.
1.1.4.1. Con: There are [alternatives to ethanol](http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2010/05/21/methanol-versus-ethanol-technical-merits-and-political-favoritism/) that perform as well or better, cost less, and have fewer downsides.
1.1.5. Con: Ethanol-blended fuels 'can reduce the net emissions of greenhouse gases by as much [as 37.1%](http://bioethanol-np.blogspot.co.uk/p/advantages-of-bioethanol.html)'.
1.1.6. Pro: A shift in Sao Paulo from gasoline to ethanol [increased air pollution.](https://www.nature.com/news/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution-1.15111)
1.2. Con: Ethanol helps gasoline burn cleaner.
1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.
1.2.2. Con: -> See 1.1.4.1.
1.3. Con: [Ethanol subsidies create jobs.](http://energy.agwired.com/2018/01/19/ethanol-really-does-create-jobs/)
1.3.1. Con: There are a [lot less expensive ways](https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nathanael-greene/corn-ethanol-tax-credit-most-expensive-way-create-jobs-ever) to create jobs than ethanol subsidies.
1.3.2. Con: [Every job](https://fee.org/articles/why-government-cant-create-jobs/) created by government costs one or more jobs elsewhere.
1.3.3. Pro: The fact that jobs can be created in a dying industry is vital in considering how governments respond.
1.3.4. Con: Its creates more complexity in [logistics](https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099/16337?show=full) and wastes [human resources](https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/land-use-change).
1.4. Con: Bioethanol is in principle a [renewable energy source](https://itstillruns.com/ethanol-called-renewable-resource-6297435.html), as long as sustainable methods are used to produce the biomass used.
1.5. Pro: [Many engines](https://axleaddict.com/misc/Pros-and-Cons-of-Ethanol-in-Gas) run better with fewer problems on gasoline unmixed with ethanol.
1.5.1. Pro: Small engines [run hotter and fail sooner](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/03/gas-with-ethanol-can-make-small-engines-fail/index.htm) when burning ethanol.
1.5.2. Pro: The EPA has admitted that ethanol [causes damage](https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/04/19/ama-epa-acknowledges-ethanol-damages-engines/) to motorcycle engines.
1.5.3. Pro: Ethanol increases the separation of fuel when the engine isn't run for a few months and [can cause damage.](http://nationalpetroleum.net/Ethanol-Water-Phase-Separation-facts.pdf)
1.5.4. Pro: [Vehicles with carburetors](https://theshopmag.com/features/ethanol-hates-carburetors) can be damaged by gasoline-ethanol fuel mixes.
1.5.5. Pro: Certain metals [are degraded by](http://www.icorr.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ethanol_SCC.pdf) ethanol-gasoline mixtures.
1.5.6. Pro: Some lubricants are [degraded by ethanol](https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/21183/2/Effects%20of%20Ethanol%20Contamination%20on%20Friction%20and%20Elastohydrodynamic%20Film%20Thickness%20of%20Engine%20Oils.pdf).
1.6. Con: It is the nature of governments to "subsidize" or "mandate" preferences. [They do it by establishing and enforcing laws](https://aeon.co/ideas/a-radical-legal-ideology-nurtured-our-era-of-economic-inequality?fbclid=IwAR1_j-rYw_MkmgICmi6jY04HVYaquEDckA7qjakd3Hif4czJGPpjuSUE2W4). They should promote those areas that are in the public best interest. Replacing fossil fuels which have historically benefited countries financially have come with devastating environmental and sociatal consequences. Government should therefore support and promote technologies that better address sociatal needs and minimize negative consequences.
1.7. Pro: Burning ethanol reduces gas mileage, leading to more fuel consumption and higher costs.
1.7.1. Pro: Flexible fuel vehicles get [15% to 27% fewer](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml) miles per gallon than when operating on regular gasoline.
1.7.2. Pro: Ethanol is [1/3 less energy dense](https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html) than gasoline.
1.7.3. Con: High compression, direct fuel injection engines have significantly higher fuel efficiencies [requiring higher octane fuels](https://www.fuelfreedom.org/in-divisive-fuel-economy-debate-theres-agreement-on-need-for-higher-octane/) like ethanol.
1.8. Pro: Ethanol subsidies [are expensive](http://rethinkethanol.com/govt-admits-ethanol-mandates-expensive-failing/) for what taxpayers receive in return.
1.8.1. Pro: Because of ethanol subsidies, from 1999 to 2009, ethanol production [increased sevenfold.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/al-gores-alcohol-problem-admits-ethanol-subsidies-a-mistake)
1.8.2. Pro: Using food grains for ethanol production causes [global food prices to increase.](https://seekingalpha.com/article/81793-food-or-fuel-for-thought)
1.8.2.1. Pro: Increases in ethanol production caused increases in corn prices that caused [the "Arab Spring" revolts.](https://www.dailysignal.com/2013/02/07/ethanol-mandate-leads-to-social-unrest/)
1.8.3. Pro: Government involvement in markets causes [market distortions and rent seeking.](http://economics.mit.edu/files/4479)
1.8.4. Pro: [The United States](https://www.caseyresearch.com/green-energy-too-many-subsidies-too-little-performance/) spends 45 cents per gallon of ethanol produced.